Not another fkn gambling company | Vital Football

Not another fkn gambling company

paz1967

paz1967

Vital Football Legend
So we did a deal with Betright (never fkn heard of them) but I figured many people were a bot sick of all these bookies. Cant we get some organic companies offering a real service to sponsor is or is that beyond our capabilities or anyone upstairs actually cares?
 
Not convinced that sponsorship changes people’s behaviour. Just seeing 888 or bet right on a shirt doesn’t make me rush out and place a bet. People addicted to gambling will gamble, just like people addicted to cigarettes will smoke. I think making smokers pariahs, not being able to smoke in bars, restaurants and at work has had more effect than banning advertising ever did. I would argue that the bans were brought in because advertising bans weren’t working.
 
paz1967 said:
So we did a deal with Betright (never fkn heard of them) but I figured many people were a bot sick of all these bookies. Cant we get some organic companies offering a real service to sponsor is or is that beyond our capabilities or anyone upstairs actually cares?
Click to expand...
I think you meant to post this on your Malta account
 
forestfire_59 said:
Not convinced that sponsorship changes people’s behaviour. Just seeing 888 or bet right on a shirt doesn’t make me rush out and place a bet. People addicted to gambling will gamble, just like people addicted to cigarettes will smoke. I think making smokers pariahs, not being able to smoke in bars, restaurants and at work has had more effect than banning advertising ever did. I would argue that the bans were brought in because advertising bans weren’t working.
Click to expand...

You think Gambling, Alcohol and Tobacco spend/t billions on sponsorship out of the good of their hearts?
 
There must be a hell of a lot of advertising money wasted. Spent years pondering why Everton were sponsored by NEC (the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham?). Candy sponsored Liverpool (no idea what they do). SBOBET sponsored West Ham. Thought they must be a Russian company until my son pointed out there is a company called SBO Bet.
Maybe someone can tell me why the slimming product company went down the pan after spending a fortune on advertising. They were called Aydes..........
 
forestfire_59 said:
Not convinced that sponsorship changes people’s behaviour. Just seeing 888 or bet right on a shirt doesn’t make me rush out and place a bet. People addicted to gambling will gamble, just like people addicted to cigarettes will smoke. I think making smokers pariahs, not being able to smoke in bars, restaurants and at work has had more effect than banning advertising ever did. I would argue that the bans were brought in because advertising bans weren’t working.
Click to expand...
Smoking bans were brought in because stopping advertising wasn't working fast enough.
Standardised packaging *alone* accounted for 25% of the reduction in smoking prevalence in a study carried out in Australia (which was the only place that had introduced that policy at the time). That was estimated to prevent nearly 100,000 deaths from smoking related disease a year. And all the associated health care costs.

Of course advertising has an effect. Ever been shopping with a child?
 
I wonder what (if any) it would have on supporters buying the shirt.

I remember once being in the shop when someone picked up a shirt and turned round to his mate and said "What do you think"? His reply was - "I ain't walking round with that sh!t on the front!!!
That was 888.
 
You're right about the smoking bans in Oz itto, they've worked well, in conjunction with bans on smoking all over the place now. Last week I was in our local shop getting a paper when a customer bought a packet of an ordinary brand of fag which cost him 46 dollars Australian which equates to something like 20 quid. That helps. We're also full of ads for betting shops but I have no idea of their success.

Anyone bringing up kids knows the effect of advertising. :eek!:
 
"I think you should have a choice of buying the kits with or without the sponsor on the front, imagine if your family has been ruined by gambling addiction & you have no choice but to advertise gambling if you want to wear the shirt!! "
 
paz1967 said:
"I think you should have a choice of buying the kits with or without the sponsor on the front, imagine if your family has been ruined by gambling addiction & you have no choice but to advertise gambling if you want to wear the shirt!! "
Click to expand...

In the past u did have the choice. I have the 150 year strips without a fookwas in sight.

Also bored of being sponsored by shit but I doubt we r about to do UNICEF any time soon
 
redderthanred said:
I wonder what (if any) it would have on supporters buying the shirt.

I remember once being in the shop when someone picked up a shirt and turned round to his mate and said "What do you think"? His reply was - "I ain't walking round with that sh!t on the front!!!
That was 888.
Click to expand...

Won't be buying one without a choice- I have plenty of tops without sponsorship and one or two old faves. My shipos is all but unwearable now but the old purple labatts still gets a look in (especially when we need luck).

Give me a sponsor that does something useful for either society or even better the club I'd give more of a shit.
 
That was the general consensus at our little thang over here :) Yes, totally agree with your thoughts there man
 
Meanwhile in Manchester

United’s new strip tops the price charts at £116.85 based on a basic adult short-sleeved shirt, shorts and socks - while their fully printed “authentic” kit - the same one worn by players on matchdays - comes in at £192.85.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.